Shyamlal Vyas (Dead) Thr. Legal ... vs Inderchand (Dead) Thr. Lr. Om ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 356 MP

                                          1


            The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                     Bench at Gwalior
                      CR-403-2021
           [Shyamlal Vyas (Dead) through Legal Representatives
                           Smt. Gopi Vyas & Ors.]
                                   Vs.
            [Inderchand (Dead) through Legal Representatives
                    Shri Om Praksh Jain & Ors.]

Gwalior, Dated:07/01/2022

      Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri Sanjeev Jain, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 &

02. Shri Kamal Mangal, learned counsel for the respondent No.03.

1. This petition has been filed by the landlord-applicants against

the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority,

Laskar, Gwalior (M.P.) in Eviction Case No.24/95-96X90-7, whereby

the application filed by the intervenor-respondents under Order 1

Rule 10 of the CPC for impledment has been allowed.

2. Brief relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the

applicants had filed an eviction application under Section 23-A of

M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the respondent No.02

on the ground of bona-fide requirement of his son before the Rent

Control Authority, Gwalior. The respondent No.03 intervenor filed an

application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleadment in these eviction

proceedings with the averment that it has obtained possession of the

rented shop from the respondents tenant No.1 & 2 in the execution of

a decree passed by the civil court in its favour. The application of the

intervenor has been allowed by the impugned order against which

this petition has been filed by the landlord/applicants.

3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the

material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in eviction

proceedings pending between the landlord and tenant third party

cannot be allowed to be impeladed even if the same claims to be the

owner of the rented premises. In this case, the same respondent-

intervenor on earlier occasion filed an application for impleadment on

15/06/1998 which was dismissed by the Rent Controlling Authority

vide order dated 03/09/1998 with the clear finding that impleadment

of alleged owner of the property would convert the application of

eviction into a title suit which is not permissible. The same intervenor

filed another application seeking dismissal of the proceedings on

similar grounds of the decree of civil court in its favour which was

dismissed by the same Rent Controlling Authority, but surprisingly

the present application filed on the same grounds for impleadment

has been allowed. The decree of the civil court on the basis of which

impleadment has been sought has been obtained by collusion. The

present landlord is not party in the civil suit in which collusive decree

has been passed. The dispute with regard to title of the property

including disputed rented property herein is pending before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed

the present eviction proceedings to continue. The present application

under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been filed concealing the material

facts. The learned Rent Controlling Authority did not consider its

earlier orders, whereby similar prayer of the impleadment and the

application seeking dismissal of the proceedings on similar grounds

were already dismissed. It also lost sight of the orders of different

courts having bearing on the issue which were filed by the landlord-

petitioners alongwith detailed reply to the application. The

impugned order is per-se illegal which deserves to be set aside. He

has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of J.J. Lal Private Ltd. Vs. M.R. Murali, reported

in (2002) 3 SCC 98.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent- intervenor has submitted

that the intervenor is owner of the rented property. He has filed a suit

for eviction against the present tenants which was decreed by the civil

court. The decree has attained finality. In execution of the decree, it

has obtained possession of the rented shop. The decree of civil court

is binding on the Rent Controlling Authority. Though, earlier

application for impleadment by intervenor was dismissed but now the

circumstances have changed with the decree of civil court passed in

favour of intervenor and with the execution there of. In such changed

circumstances, the present eviction proceedings cannot be effectively

adjudicated without impleading intervenor, hence, there is no legal

infirmity in the impugned order. The petition deserves to be

dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the intervenor-respondents has placed

reliance upon Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja [(2021) 1

SCC 414], Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others

[1999 AIR (SC) 976], Nemichand Jain Vs. Ram Baboo [1995 (1)

MPWN 47], Jai Narayan Das Vs. Chhotelal and others [2018 (II)

MPWN 113].

7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 (tenants) has

submitted that in the execution of the decree of civil court passed

against them, the intervenor has taken possession of the rented

premises. In such circumstances, the impugned order does not call for

interference by this court. The petition deserve to be dismissed.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. The issue of impleadment of third party in the eviction

proceedings on the basis of title or ownership was considered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgement in the case of

J.J. Lal Private Ltd. Vs. M.R. Murali (supra) and it was held as

under;

"I.A. Nos.33-36 of 2001

26. Hemlata Mohan, the applicant in these IAs seeks her impleadment in these proceedings submitting that on the basis of the Will dated 30.1.1935 executed by her grand-father she is one of the landlords entitled to apportionment of rent. A suit for establishment of her title and share in the property is pending in Madras High Court registered as Civil Suit No.452 of 1988. I.A. Nos. 41 to 44 of 2001

27. These applications are filed by Municipal Corporation of Chennai seeking its impleadment in the proceedings alleging that the two premises, Door Nos.244 and 264, subject-matter of

litigation in these proceedings are owned by it and therefore it needs to be impleaded as party in these appeals.

28. Both the sets of applications raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of these proceedings. This is a simple landlord- tenant suit. The relationship of Municipal Corporation with the respondents and their mutual rights and obligations are not germane to the present proceedings. Similarly, the question of title between Hemlata Mohan and the respondents cannot be decided in these proceedings. The impleadment of any of the two applicants would change the complexion of litigation and raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of this litigation. The presence of either of the applicants is neither necessary for the decision of the question involved in these proceedings nor their presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in these proceedings. They are neither necessary nor proper parties. Any decision in these proceedings would govern and bind the parties herein. Each of the two applicants is free to establish its own claims and title whatever it may be in any independent proceedings before a competent forum. The applications for impleadment are dismissed."

10. In view of the above legal position, it is clear that the scope of

eviction proceedings is very limited. If on consideration of the

pleadings and the evidence led by both the sides, the landlord-tenant

relationship is established between the parties and the ground of

eviction is proved then the decree or order of eviction would be

passed. To ascertain the landlord-tenant relationship, the issue of title

or ownership over the property is not to be decided by the concerned

adjudicating forum. Thus, all the issues related to eviction can be

finally and effectually decided between the landlord and tenant

without impleading any third party may be claiming title over the

property. Thus, impleadment of third party in eviction proceedings on

the basis of claiming the title over the rented property is not

permissible.

11. On perusal of the record of this case, it is clear that the

petitioner herein had filed an application for eviction u/S.23-A of

M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in the year 1995 which is

pending adjudication before the said Rent Controlling Authority. The

landlord-tenant relationship is to be decided on the basis of pleadings

and evidence produced by landlord and tenants, hence, in light of

above legal position the impugned order of impleadment of third

party in the pending eviction proceedings is not sustainable.

12. While passing the impugned order, learned Rent Controlling

Authority has lost sight of its earlier order passed on 03/09/1998,

whereby application for impleadment by the same party was

dismissed with a clear finding that its impleadment is not permissible

as it will convert the eviction proceedings into the suit of title for

which the Rent Controlling Authority is not competent to deal with.

13. Since the issue of impleadment of the same party was finally

adjudicated between the the same parties, hence, this subsequent

application for the same purpose is hit by the principle of

constructive res judicata.

14. Rent Controlling Authority while passing the impugned order

has also not considered its recent order, whereby it has dismissed the

application of the same party seeking dismissal of the proceedings on

the basis of decree of civil court stated to be passed in its favour

against the present tenant. Undisputably, the same party has just

thereafter filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for

impleadment on the same ground of decree of civil court but learned

Rent Controlling Authority has allowed this application, whereby it

has practically reviewed and recalled its earlier order which is not

permissible under law.

15. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-landlord is not party

to the suit, wherein decree of eviction with regard to rented shop has

been passed against the present tenant and in favour of intervenor-

respondent. However, the said decree will take its own course as per

law. This Court under these proceedings is not required to comment

over the effect and operation of the said decree. The Rent Controlling

Authority would decide landlord-tenant relationship between the

parties taking into consideration the pleadings and oral and

documentary evidence led by both the sides including said decree of

civil court and all other relevant documents related to the disputes

which are pending before several courts up to the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as produced before it by any of the parties, but present

intervenor-respondent, being third party, cannot be treated to be a

necessary or proper party in the eviction proceedings as its presence

in the eviction proceedings is not necessary for adjudication at all and

the same can very well be adjudicated without its impleadment.

16. In the judgments of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) and Savitri

Devi (supra) cited by learned counsel for intervenor-respondents, the

issue of impleadment of necessary party was considered in quite

different context and not in eviction proceedings. In Nemichand

Jain's case, the landlord himself averred in his suit that original tenant

has handed over the possession to the said applicant Nemichand. In

Jai Narayan Das's case following the verdict of Nemichand Jain's

case, impleadment of person in possession was allowed, but as

discussed above in this case, applicant-landlord has nowhere averred

or admitted that original tenant has handed over the possession of the

rented property to the intervenor, rather he has categorically denied

the fact of possession of the intervenor. Further there are several other

grounds on which the impleadment of the present intervenor is not

permissible. He has also placed on record the judgments, in

compliance of which the present landlord has taken possession of

shop adjoining to the disputed shop from the same tenant. The facts

and circumstances of the cases cited above are quite different to the

present case. Hence, the cited judgments do not help the intervenor

particularly in view of the clear mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

J.J. Lal Private Ltd. (supra) on the same issue in eviction proceedings.

17. In view of above discussion and the reason stated, this Court is

of the view that learned Rent Controlling Authority has erred in

allowing the application of impleadment by the intervenor-

respondent. The impugned order suffers with material illegality and

infirmity which is not sustainable in the eyes of law consequently,

petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The

application filed by intervenor-respondent for impleadment under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is dismissed. The Rent Controlling Authority to

proceed further with the eviction application in accordance with law.

18. Since, the eviction proceeding under special provisions are

pending for more than 26-27 years, the Rent Controlling Authority

shall take up the matter on priority and dispose of the same at the

earliest, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the

receipt of certified copy of this Order.

19. A copy of this order be sent to learned Rent Controlling

Authority, Lashkar, Gwalior (M.P.) for compliance.

(Satish Kumar Sharma) Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2022.01.11 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 11:43:47 +05'30'